From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Dec 04 2002 - 17:36:39 MST
Jef writes
> >> Having lived and travel in Japan and Asia for a few years, I found
> >> it very interesting to read the international newspapers and see a
> >> completely different set of biases on American news events.
> >> Traveling from country to country, each newspaper was visibly biased
> >> in its own way, and it was almost shocking to be able to compare and
> >> see from that perspective how the American news sources deliver
> >> their product in a way that looks very much like propaganda to an
> >> outsider.
> >
> > This is quite amazing.
>
> Lee, are you honestly amazed, or could this be sarcasm?
Jesus Christ. Why am I not permitted the honest expression of
feeling? Did you read my entire post before you assumed that
I was nastily manipulating the medium and lying as usual?
(Don't feel guilty---I'm in no mood now to read all of your
post before firing back ;-)
> Hmmm. It seems that Lee is adopting an extreme position here to encourage
> debate rather than to refine understanding. Once again, it feels like
> manipulation rather than sincere discussion, but I'm beginning to think it's
> simply how Lee likes to play the game.
I wish to hell that I could have an honest dialog with you.
I tried my best to present my true questions and feelings,
and this is all I get back.
Perhaps any time people ask you questions, you get paranoid
and wonder where it's leading? Or what their agenda really is?
> > (By the way, this candid confession
> > is not intended to provoke rants from anyone on how parochial
> > I am, and on how narrow and stupid is my understanding of
> > everything.)
And that didn't tip you off that I meant every word?
> Your next sentence certainly seems to indicate sarcasm, but maybe it's
> intended humorously.
>
> > You really mean that every newspaper appeared
> > to be biased in its own way? You mean *none* of them appeared
> > to present news in a fashion that did not allow you to draw
> > conclusions as to the ideological sympathies of the writer?
>
> Lee, I certainly didn't read EVERY paper available, nor did I mean to imply
> that I did.
Sorry. Of course I should not have implied that you read
every paper. I meant that---gee---even here (I think!) that
one has to read several articles from the front page of a
newspaper before picking up any bias. And, more tellingly
(though this is your point) the bias certainly doesn't
always jump out at one. Or at me, at any rate.
> I was commenting on my general observations over a few years
> living and traveling in Asia. My posting was to make the
> point that it is useful and enlightening to be able to see
> the US from outside, something many Americans never experience.
Yes, and I do thank you for your observations.
(***PLEASE NOTE: THE LAST SENTENCE WAS *NOT* SARCASM OR
ANYTHING ELSE BUT A PRECISE thank you FOR YOUR TROUBLE,
REGARDLESS OF HOW CYNICAL, MANIPULATIVE, OR INDIRECT
IT MAY APPEAR TO YOU.***)
> > While one only sometimes finds it in the U.S., one can find
> > it. In fact, I think that in at least one story on the front
> > page of a major American newspaper, you cannot tell the
> > political persuasion of the writer, nor whether he or she
> > is at all pro- or anti-American.
>
> I think virtually all of us would agree that there exists some very high
> quality, minimally biased reporting in American media. Once again, it
> appears you are re-casting my posting to appear extreme. My point was that
> the mainstream American media generally present issues in a way that is
> palatable to American popular tastes, and it can be very enlightening to
> view these same issues from a perspective outside the US.
Thanks for the correction. (No sarcasm.) But I sincerely wish
to understand how the newspapers that I generally read (mostly
liberal ones, like the San Jose Mercury) make the news especially
palatable. (The only thing that I can think of---this is where
your further assistance would help, if you have time---is that
you found foreign newspapers quite incendiary and having an axe
to grind from page one. Whereas as usual, American politeness
and urge not to offend make our papers here rather too mild?)
> >> This comes across especially strongly when you see what the US
> >> mainstream papers do *not* print because it would be contrary to, or
> >> question, "American values" and diminish the enjoyable entertainment
> >> value of the paper to their US audience.
> >
> > An example or two, so that I can get the idea?
>
> I think you do get the idea, and this is your way of fishing for more
> targets to play with in a subsequent post.
You are quite wrong. I'm not after any targets. You've been
there and seen it, I have not. I'm just trying to get a
consistent picture inside my skull of how all this could be.
I'm sorry if my POV is so alien that it makes it hard to
understand you. (NOTE: THE PRECEDING SENTENCE IS TO BE
TAKEN LITERALLY----NO SARCASM.)
> It was a general statement about mainstream media.
> We all know that one can find alternate viewpoints in
> print, radio and on the Internet. An example would be
> looking at recent mainstream newspaper articles in the
> US, and observing the multifront buildup of support for
> war in Iraq, demonizing of Saddam, and so on, with less
> than equal representation of contrasting viewpoints and
> analysis from other countries.
Oh, why thank you. That was exactly the kind of example
I needed. It raises a tiny further question, however,
(doesn't everything seem to? ;-) in that I wonder how
it must be in typical foreign papers, in that some of
them entertain opposing views more than ours do. (That
would fit Anders' points about the way people presenting
papers in Europe tend to give more minuses as well as
the usual plusses for their theories.)
> It's natural to have this kind of popular bias in the
> mainstream American media. My point was that if you
> observe from other countries outside the US, you will
> see strongly contrasting perspectives
In the same newspaper, or in a number of equally prominent
prominent ones that vie equally for attention in the eyes
of casual readers? OF course, there are strongly contrasting
perspectives here too, but, as we have said, they don't
dominate the media.
> and that the American popular media can be perceived as
> self-serving propaganda to an extent many Americans may
> be shocked to see.
Propaganda? Hmm. Maybe I would understand this point
better if you could specify it as either "right-wing
propaganda" or "left-wing propaganda". Is that possible?
Now from what you have written, I suppose that one kind
of propaganda that you would find in American newspapers
is anti-Saddam presentations. Recently there has appeared
in Britain and the U.S. more reports of atrocities
committed by Saddam Hussein. But for the last year or
so, I would say that it has been rather quiet.
But you could be right: I find now that even those opposed
to U.S. policy admit that Saddam is no saint. Do you find
that in foreign papers a more balanced account, that speaks
of many good points he has?
> >> Every day I would read serious, well-reasoned criticism of
> >> US policies in the overseas papers while in the US papers even
> >> what passes for criticism comes across as the "party line"
> >> when viewed from outside.
> >
> > Totally amazing.
>
> Is this sarcasm again, or humor, or Corbin-esque debating style?
Hey, Jef! I am *not* even debating, if you didn't notice.
I am requesting information. If you find some of my questions
difficult, then maybe they're making you think. Here and there
in your replies you have satisfied my curiosity, and for that
I sincerely thank you. I am *not* trying to debate anything.
> > So you are saying that all the right-wing
> > rags, all the left-wing socialist (actually communist, let's
> > face it) rags, and everything from Lyndon LaRouche, Noam
> > Chomsky, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill Press all have a certain
> > definable something in common? You're right: it's invisible
> > to me. What in heck is it? Can you say?
>
> You're arguing from extremes again here. I think I was pretty clear that I
> was talking about mainstream media. I think all of us know that alternate
> points of view are readily available.
Oh, okay. Sorry for supposing that you had found something
*truly* interesting. You understand, of course, that it *is*
possible that entire cultures can have blind-spots, and I
was wondering if you had perhaps seen something blind about
the West, or about America in particular. I misread you,
and am sorry. (NOTE: THE PRECEDING IS AN ENTIRELY CANDID
ADMISSION OF HAVING MADE A MISTAKE, AND IS NOT SUPPOSED IN
ANY WAY TO BE TAKEN AS SARCASM OR ANYTHING ELSE.)
> >> The other comparison that can be made is the strong sense that many
> >> other countries clearly consider themselves part of an international
> >> community, whereas US reporting gives the impression that American
> >> events are central and international events are peripheral.
> >
> > Observe how well this fits a point made by Anders in another
> > thread ("Culture", Mon 11/25/2002 7:58 AM):
> >
> > If one looks at surveys of cultural dimensions, the US
> > is clearly more individualistic than European countries,
> > and there are more complex differences in uncertainty
> > avoidance and traditionalism.
> >
> > To take a typical example, American CVs are regarded by
> > Europeans as boastful, padded and giving an exaggerated
> > image of the person. While European CVs in the US are
> > regarded as too humble, giving the impression of mediocrity.
> > Similarly at scientific conferences, American researchers
> > usually strongly delineate their conclusions with few
> > qualifiers, expecting the audience to provide the
> > balancing criticism, while ***European (especially
> > Scandinavian) researchers mention all issues and problems,
> > expecting the audience to give constructive criticism on how
> > to reach stronger conclusions.***
> >
> > (Italics added.) Indeed it appears that "community
> > spirit" is more widespread outside the U.S., and in
> > more ways than one!
>
> Interesting how you twisted the intended meaning of that paragraph.
Twisted, now? Here I was to the best of my ability complimenting
you and noting that I was perhaps beginning to understand, by
comparing what I thought to be a very similar insight supplied
by Anders. Boy, do you have a chip on your shoulder!
> Actually, my observations are that Americans in general have a relatively
> high level of community spirit, probably due to pioneer heritage, new world
> settling dynamics, and various other factors. But that wasn't my point at
> all.
Yes. Anders straightened me out on that earlier today. (NO SARCASM.)
But thanks anyway. (NO SARCASM.)
> I think it was clear from my post that I was saying that many countries
> outside the US see themselves as a community of countries,
Yes. But psychologically, can't you see the similarity to
Anders' point? What could *cause* people in those countries
to see themselves that way? Yes, it's probably mostly the
temporal nearness of the frontier in American culture, but
whatever it is, it struck me as closely related. But maybe
I'm wrong. Perhaps it's not.
> while they see the US as less a member of the community of
> nations, and more inclined to use its might to have its own way.
Ah, that nuance escaped me. (NO SARCASM HERE.) That is, you
are saying that the general bias in the foreign papers is to
see the U.S. as a bully, and for the countries---the residents
of those countries, of course---to see themselves all as either
innocent bystanders or (mild) victims.
> >> Every country will naturally emphasize local issues,
> >> but America is big enough, strong enough, and involved
> >> enough in world issues that the disparity is glaring.
> >
> > Don't forget the history: American cultural institutions
> > developed in relative isolation, and that the American
> > mind-set is less cosmopolitan isn't too much of a surprise.
> >
> >> I'm happy to be an American, and proud of my country's
> >> strengths, but international awareness is one area in
> >> general where we do need improvement.
> >
> > Why are you proud? Did you personally contribute to
> > any of America's strengths, or feel like you did?
>
> Thank you. I think this is the one valid point you have made with regard to
> my post. I thought long and hard before making the statement that I am
> proud to be an American. I finally included it, with some misgivings,
> intending to improve the balance of my message and to divert some
> unanticipated unproductive attacks on grounds of patriotism.
Yeah; I gave that about a 60% chance ;-) I can hardly blame
you for getting tired of unproductive attacks, though. I myself
am the victim of unproductive attacks sometimes too ;-)
> I've thought a lot about what it means to say that one is proud of
> something, and in a deep logical sense I can't really justify it.
Totally agree. But then I'm not the "team player" that
many people are. My pleasure at the U.S. demolition of
Japanese imperialism and barbarity, for example, evokes
in me the same good feelings as when the Romans (in their
less brutal moments) would thoroughly defeat barbarians
and raise everyone's standard of living.
> By the way, I just realized I feel the same sense of pride with regard to
> some Japanese strengths (just one example). It's the same feeling, but I
> can't use the word "proud" in that case because I certainly have no claim to
> being Japanese. I need another word that means identifying with
> accomplishments and values of others from the perspective that we're all in
> this together. [End half-baked idea. I need to get to work.]
Yeah, that's the same emotion that I was just talking about.
> > But to re-iterate the most important question in another
> > way: how can it be that in a nation of 290 million
> > people, with enormous liberties of the press, that any
> > particular slant taken by some (say Japanese) foreign
> > newspaper is not mirrored by some point on the political
> > spectrum within the U.S. itself?
>
> Gee, did I say THAT? <g>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lee
>
> No, thank YOU. <g>
Humph. At least you didn't end on an accusatory note!
Best regards,
SINCERELY,
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:34 MST